W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > March 2006

Re: WSO2 -> Axis issues (PLEASE READ, SPEC/TEST ISSUES)

From: Davanum Srinivas <dims@wso2.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:39:39 -0500
Message-ID: <44185F6B.20300@wso2.com>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
CC: Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>, public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree with Glen.

Glen Daniels wrote:
> 
>> I agree that's not what the spec says now, but I thought from 
>> the minutes that there had been discussion around clarifying 
>> it. Apparently not. Did anyone take an AI on Monday to try to 
>> resolve this further?
> 
> No, and I don't think we plan to change anything else - that's why I
> suggested putting in another explicit test for this behavior (ReplyTo ==
> none, bad To/Action header, no fault returned).  It appears that all the
> implementations except Axis are currently assuming "faults to anonymous
> on any WSA error", which is, I believe, wrong with the status quo.
> 
> --Glen
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
>> Sent: Wed 3/15/2006 11:14 AM
>> To: Mark Little
>> Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: WSO2 -> Axis issues (PLEASE READ, SPEC/TEST ISSUES)
>>
>>
>> Hi Mark:
>>
>>> Having caught up on my email backlog it seems that we need to
>>> tighten up the specification in terms of what it says about
>>> errors that occur during the processing of the WSA header. It
>>> does appear from the discussion in the WG that the consensus
>>> is that faults must be dealt with as though WSA was not being
>>> used at all. I missed that part of the meeting on Monday, so
>>> was there anything else said that isn't covered in the minutes?
>> I don't think that's quite correct.  IIRC, we simply clarified that if
>> there are any problems with the headers, you cannot set values for the
>> abstract properties associated with the particular bad headers.
>> Therefore if there is a duplicated <To> for instance, normal <FaultTo>
>> and <ReplyTo> processing would still occur (barring any problems with
>> those headers of course), and faults would be delivered to 
>> the <FaultTo>
>> EPR if present, and the <ReplyTo> EPR otherwise.  If there were a
>> duplicated <FaultTo> you wouldn't have a [fault endpoint] 
>> property, and
>> would therefore default to <ReplyTo> anyway.  That's my understanding.
>>
>> I would certainly be fine from a design perspective to say that faults
>> doing WSA processing are treated as if WSA is not in effect, 
>> but that's
>> not what the spec says now.
>>
>> --Glen
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


- --
Davanum Srinivas (dims@wso2.com)
VP/Engg, WSO2 (http://wso2.com)
Yahoo IM: dims Cell/Mobile: +1 (508) 415 7509
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFEGF9rgNg6eWEDv1kRAgBmAJ4mURHqE8soEJfnCleDKUArgIsZngCgpK/7
5l+8cB3QIDCA/znRWx3TbHk=
=c9Ie
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:42:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:42 UTC